Candidate Kokta not a hateful zealot

To the Editor:

David Auerbach's column in last weekend's Herald [Demagogue for `alterwoman,' 10/10/97] started out on the right comical and tasteful foot, and I laughed silently to myself as I remembered the first day I happened to pass "Sister Carrie" in all of her fanatic glory. "Spewing bilious, hate-filled invective," of the sort that Auerbach cited in his piece, is certainly what Sister Carrie does. Making people uncomfortable seems to be her metier, her raison d'etre. She is offensive, her rhetoric is envenom-ed, and her antipathy makes her odious.

Imagine my surprise when the second of the "two people" to whom Auerbach refers as hate-filled and invective-spouting turned out to be Robert Kokta, BK '01. Bob and I met freshmen year and have enjoyed countless meals and discussions together. Over the year that I have known him, Bob has proven to be a good friend, an intelligent and principled person, a committed student and musician, and (at the risk of sounding warm and fuzzy) a pleasant and kind man. I've been around Bob in political, social, and academic contexts and never once have I heard him raise his voice, insult anyone, or otherwise prove himself capable of delivering the sort of speech or adhering to the dogma that Auerbach attributes to him.

Auerbach does not quote nor even summarize Bob's Cross Campus speech with the precision he did Sister Carrie's, and I think the reason for this is clear: there was nothing in Bob's speech even remotely offensive, "hate-filled," or bizarre. I was there. I wonder whether Auerbach bothered to do more than glance out his Cross Campus window before he wrote his editorial--if he had looked, he would have seen the other 10 to 20 people who were listening to Bob speak, not out of "disbelief and ennui" but rather out of interest. Whatever Mr. Auerbach may think of Mr. Kokta's politics and rhetorical style, and whatever he may think of politics in general, he must admit that the comparison he draws is insulting and absurd.

I'm not interested in defending Bob's politics. Bob can speak for himself. What concerns me as Bob's friend are Auerbach's nasty political tactics. He exhorts us to vote against Bob ("don't vote for Kokta"), but doesn't tell us why to vote for the other candidate. Last week's "Bastard Hat" was of the textbook smear-campaign variety, plain and simple. Auerbach tries to teach us that religious fanaticism, bigotry, intolerance, fire and brimstone rhetoric, and "bilious, hate-filled invective" are words which we should associate with Bob Kokta. But all Auerbach really said, honestly, is that he thought Bob's speech was boring to listen to. Shut your window, Mr. Auerbach, if you don't want to hear it. But don't publish captious and flimsy rhetoric at the expense of serious and dedicated political candidates.

"Politics may be dead," as you wrote, Mr. Auerbach, but mud-slinging, apparently, is alive and kicking.

--Erin Tadie, BR '00

Back to Opinion...